Interesting Take on Charity/Purity

[Baelor]

Article here

Marc:

Purity as such [the evangelical Christian conception] is a lie. But this only follows if “purity” is defined as our wanna-be-Christian culture defines it, which is essentially not having sex until you’re married. This cannot be the definition. Not having sex until your married, taken in itself, is simply an absence of sex. As an absence, “purity” cannot be something “good,” for something must be in order for it to be good.
…
Any other definition of chastity is centered around an absence, and as such has no soul. “Chastity is not having sex before marriage.” “Chastity is not showing too much skin.” These things may be fruits of being chaste, but there is no way in hell that they are chastity in itself. Chastity that stops — or starts, for that matter — at “not dressing like a slut” is incomplete, for it has no basis.

The whole article is worth checking out; I snipped the “theses” of sorts but the explanation and discussion of the CCC and Mary are worth checking out. I imagine there will be disagreement on some points of the article. Thoughts?

WARNING: Some coarse language, so NSFW.

 

[Edward_H]

The world and many Catholics could use a more proper understanding of purity and chastity.

All are called to chastity, married and single alike.

Our intentions in marital intimacy should be ‘pure’…in fact they should be heroic…namely: to make our spouse know that she is loved as no other in the world. Yes…it should be that grand.

We shouldn’t pursue our own desires in intimacy, only the total happiness of our spouse.

That’s a proper, heroic, bold, grand, fantastic understanding of chastity.

The secular world wants to paint chastity into the prudery corner. How wrong. How much it is robbing good people of a great view of sex.

 

[PRmerger]

Article here

The whole article is worth checking out; I snipped the “theses” of sorts but the explanation and discussion of the CCC and Mary are worth checking out. I imagine there will be disagreement on some points of the article. Thoughts?

WARNING: Some coarse language, so NSFW.

Love Marc Barnes!

He seems to be echoing Pope JPII’s TOB’s theme of rejecting the legalism of “how far is too far”. According to TOB, “how far is too far” is the exact wrong question to be asking.